Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Judge Alito made known today that he is against looking at the EU courts and laws for standards in making decisions regarding US court decisions. Thank God. America's sovereignty is being pressured by international courts and international organizations. The International Court of Justice and the European Union courts are all actively setting 'world' standards for crimes and punishments. They would like nothing better to influence the Supreme Court. Sadly, we have Justices who beieve we should look at this international courts to set our standards for what is right and what is wrong and what punishment should be meted out. But Alito will have none of this and that is why it is so important for him to confirmed and reverse this dangerous trend by some Supreme Court justices.

By DAVID STOUTPublished: January 11, 2006WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, said today he did not believe that American judges should be guided by the laws of other countries in coming to their decisions.

Judge Alito's opinions, editorial perceptions and the legacy of the Supreme Court.Reporter's NotebookDavid D. Kirkpatrick at the Senate hearings.

"I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law," Judge Alito said in response to questions from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, in the third day of the judge's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Judge Alito said he thought the Founding Fathers would be "stunned" to see United States jurists being steered by laws in foreign lands. "We should interpret our Constitution," the judge said.The nominee was, at least implicitly, finding fault with the Supreme Court's ruling on March 1 that outlawed the execution of killers who were under 18 at the time of their crimes. That opinion, decided by a 5-4 majority, relied in part on the trend of international opinion against the death penalty, especially for youthful offenders.

But Judge Alito said he saw several problems in relying on foreign law. Courts in other countries may bear little resemblance to those in the United States, he said. Moreover, he said, the Bill of Rights to the Constitution set out rights that existed "practically nowhere else in the world at that time," and so it may be difficult to find judicial holdings in other countries that are applicable to circumstances in the United States.

3 comments:

You've hit here on one of the issues that is so definitive that there's no possible compromise in the citizenry, and the answer has to be either/or, right or wrong; and how one decides that, how we as a nation decide it, will inform our society for decades at least.

Are we Americans or are we internationalists? Do we value our laws or do we think we should "change with the times?" being flexible and progressive? being open and co-operative and intellectual?

There will be those who claim tha America is islolationist and isolated from the mainstream of the modern world, prefering its "arrogance" to the sophistication of Europe and the "natural attunement to nature and postive aspects of traditional culture" of the Third World Peoples.

Obviously, I despise the Europeans and the Third Worlders, the neo-feudalists and their farm-animal stock. But I'm one guy, and I don't live at home anymore. Others differ in those ways, and it'll be up to full-time Americans to decide how to decide the future of our nation. They will have to decide whether we wish to be Americans or Euro-dhimmis. This is a crucial decision for America. I haven't seen one this black and white in years.

Is our law the good or are we cut off from the world? exulting in our ignorance of the good? If we refuse to consider the laws of others, are we dismissing the good they might have? That would be a shame on our part, to ignore good simply because others discovered it. That would be criminally ignorant. We would deprive ourselves of good for no reason other than that we are petty and stupid.

But, are we isolationist bigots deliberately cutting off our access to the good? How does the decision above come to that? There is no hint that a good concept from elsewhere is ignored, only that European and foreign laws will not be the model for our laws simply because others have those laws. We might not follow the laws of others simply because the laws of others are popular there and perhaps among some of our own. Will we follow our own laws because they are right and better than the laws of others or will we follow the laws of others because we are afraid of being scorned as arrogant Americans?

The real question for me is not whether our laws are better for us and us alone but whether our laws are better for us because our laws are objectively better. If our laws are better thn those laws of other lands, then other lands should adopt our laws because it's right to have better laws, and there's no reason to pander to others doing wrong simply because they are others. If this is a world community, then the community can follow one rule of one set of laws, and not a patchwork of idiocies based on local customs that do not reflect the universal objecte law of the good.

If our laws are better, then others should follow our laws, and if they don't like it, then they should be arrested in violation of the universal good.

Look at there laws? I don't think so. Others should follow ours and be damned glad of it.

But there is the dividing line in our land: will our Left dhimmi fascists side automatically with the neo-feudalist Europeans and continue to wage a war against our Modernity? Likely so, and that is a defining attribute of the man. How many, in our democracy, are against our Moderity, how many for our revolutions of Progress?

We have two Americas: the Modern, and the fascistic reactionary neo-feudalist part. It's black and white. Who will prevail?

I haven't had the opportunity to watch today the proceedings but yesterday, I thought Judge Alito acquitted himself very well. He seemed confident and controlled while also giving the impression (at least to me) of someone who cares about the Constitution more than political positions.

Senator Kennedy's true colors showed themselves in today's hearings. What a jackass. I don't think it mattered who Bush nominated, Kennedy would find him/her objectionable. I used to think Joe Biden was someone who could put the interest of the nation above petty politics but he also proved me wrong today.